“That one can convince one’s opponents with printed reasons, I have not believed since the year 1764. It is not for that purpose that I have taken up my pen, but rather merely to annoy them, and to give strength and courage to those on our side, and to make it known to the others that they have not convinced us.”
G.C. Lichtenberg (1742 – 1799), courtesy of 'Deogolwulf'

Saturday, 17 February 2018

What can America do about its gun problem?

Nothing! Zero! Zilch!

The problem, in my ignorant opinion, is that not nearly enough people are being slaughtered! Every few months (it seems like) another mass-killing nutcase starts exercising his trigger-finger and another group of innocent people are killed. There then ensues a great deal of weeping and wailing and beating of breasts - and then it stops as everyone waits for the next atrocity to occur which, of course, everyone knows with absolute certainty, it will!

On the basis that a "mass shooting" is defined as an event in which at least four people are killed then last year there were 346 such fatalities which was actually an improvement(!) on the previous year's figure of 432 dead. Also, it needs to be borne in mind that whilst guns are a deadly menace, then so too are cars. During the year 2016, the number of people killed in automobile accidents reached 37,461. If America is to rid itself of guns then perhaps they should think of banning cars also!

Then, of course, there is the problem of how, exactly and precisely, an American government can actually set about ridding the nation of guns? Gun ownership is strictly illegal in many high population big cities but the murder rates in Baltimore and Chicago prove the utter futility of that! The usual socialist-style answer would be to slap on a prohibitive tax to all gun sales but we all know that would simply increase the illegal gun market. Today, America is a highly fractious nation and any attempt by a federal government to use heavy-handed power to deprive citizens of their guns would cause a major irruption.

That’s a great article from Malcolm. I don’t think he’s mind if I quoted at length:

“To those on the Left ... I’ll say this:

While you were, over the last half-century, systematically destroying, displacing, denouncing, and dismantling the historic American nation and its civil society — all moral norms, every basis of public commonality, all respect for our history and heritage, the public expression of religion, the nuclear family, sexual restraint, and every natural structure and category and hierarchy that held civilization together and gave young people a framework within which to learn dignity and duty and gratitude and belonging and meaning and self-control — while you were doing all that, what did you think was going to happen? And now you want to “fix” the moral and social wreckage you’ve created by disarming us against your future predations upon our rights, our culture, and upon the society we still hope, against hope, to restore and preserve?

Trying to comment productively in any way on a problem resulting from dozens of facets in law and history is a fool's errand. However, it's definitely not true that nothing can be done. Countless things are being done - some right, some wrong. Possibly more significantly the generation of children whose schools are being shot up will eventually be voters.

"The institutional decay in the United States is beyond obvious. Yet the institutions fight tooth and nail to avoid accountability. Before entrusting these institutions with any more power, it would be far better to fix them–which may require a root-and-branch restructuring–so that we can be confident that they can responsibly exercise the vast powers they already wield. To say that no such confidence is warranted today is beyond cavil".

Substitute United States for United Kingdom & power for tax payer monies, we could be talking about the totally discredited national charidee farrago.

Last evening I noticed and read a piece outta the NRO I considered made some actual sense for a change. Actually it impressed me so much I sent it flying in emails to, among others; Arkansas' legislators I've communicated with in the past, the Lefty editor of a Lefty rag & website I used to communicate a bunch with PT, and, since I was going by there on my way to the liquor store anyway, my local county Sheriff (discussion with the latter, no email).

I pointed out that, in my opinion, it wasn't a good idea to go monkeying around at the Federal level with the Constitution's 2nd (as laid out in Federalist 46) but there ought be a perfectly reasonable discussion at the various State levels over a method I hadn't been aware of before last night.

It is admitted by all that the FBI failed to enforce existing laws, including gun laws. Now, somehow, we can solve all our problems by passing more laws, granting more power to bumbling government agencies than they can handle? What new law could have possibly prevented this tragedy? Mind you, I am also suspicious of people whose arguments depend on so many lies. They refer constantly to "Assault rifles" which do not exist. They talk about "semi automatic weapons" as if those were something like machine guns, which have been illegal since the 1930's. A kid goes crazier, and no one does anything, and somehow the solution is to disarm the other two hundred million or so peaceful people? That is just crazy.
The guy walked into a gun-free zone and pulled a fire alarm, and murdered seventeen people. That's what gun control can do. What if just one teacher had been allowed to be armed? I realize that a lot of the propaganda tells people that guns "go off" by accident. They generally don't. A couple of nice English guys visited out church a couple of weeks ago. I told then that they were safe from the gun violence they had read about, because four parishioners were carrying concealed. Their immediate concern was cross fire and accidental shooting, because of the lies they had been fed. Concealed carry license instruction is all about safety, about the many times one ought NOT to draw a weapon. The conversation ended too soon, so I did not get the chance ask them about the bystanders shot, when the New York Police Department responded to a crazy who was shooting people on the observation deck of the Empire State Building.
Citizens are generally better trained than cops.

But and however, the simple fact is that several thousand times more people have died at the hands of some government or its agency than have perished in assaults by criminals ought to tell us why the compact (contract) that we call the Constitution stipulated that the power of weapons would remain in the hands of THE PEOPLE. The Framers did not even want to allow standing armies, and preferred to leave the defense of the Republic to the militia, which was and is the armed citizenry. The National Guard would not exist for another hundred and twenty seven years.Jefferson called us a "yeoman Republic" Yeoman means yewman, because bows were made of yew wood. It was believed for about a thousand years that the liberties of Britons arose from the fact that they were armed, and their bows were a significant deterrence to invasion, and to usurpation by lords and kings. I very much prefer that the government be afraid of us, than that we come to fear the government, whose advancing power is supported by so many liars.

Local control might be the best and worst but only answer. For example, Connecticut passed strict safety laws after the Sandy Hook massacre, and gun deaths have dropped about 30% since. The situation in Chicago is different. There are strict laws there too, but guns flow into the city from nearby Indiana, which has lax laws. There are so many factors involved no generalization can be made, but there's no real momentum for changing laws at the federal level.

You've probably read that gun manufacturer Remington has filed for bankruptcy. Some of the movement on the issue is all bank shot:

Maybe you or someone else can help me out here. The idea "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun" seems deceptively simple. In the case of school shootings, teachers or others would presumably shoot back at insane killers likely armed with semi or full autos. Would the teachers or others also have semi or full autos? If not, wouldn't they be outgunned and wouldn't their sane sense of self-preservation often work against them? If so, wouldn't that put students in close proximity to a full-on firefight? Is there any way to guarantee the teachers or others would win? Couldn't there be a lot of "collateral damage" even if they did?

It's so highly unlikely anybody "doing a school" in the USA is gonna be using "full auto" I find myself wondering if I've overestimated your baseline knowledge of the actual facts. I'd recommend Bob you reading something I sent to my friend Malcolm a few years back:

Far as your "wouldn't their sane sense of self-preservation often work against them?" goes I'd only ask Bob - and precisely on that premise Bob we're gonna have to get down to the foundations of what you consider is worth laying your own life down for. I think now Bob I've a greater appreciation for the differences of how we differed in our upbringing.

First thing I was learned (outside the box of; this is the blunt end which fits into your shoulder/palm and this skinny end is where the bullets come out) was, "Son, you must understand and come to grips with your entire being that, if a situation arises within which you totally comprehend it's either kill or be killed or, in order to protect whatever's dear to you, you must Prior to the Situation! make the decision over whether it's worth it."

Something like that anyways Bob. Of course that advice was drilled into me as a youngun' and years before I got to bootcamp where I learned the basic that, "Kill everything that hasn't got the Stars and Stripes onit!"

***

"Wouldn't that put students in close proximity to a full-on firefight?"

Well Bob I'd only suggest maybe you do a little pondering on why David's put this post up in the first place and then ponder a little bit upon whether "a firefight" might be a better thing than "an outright slaughter"? Teachers in my experience do not take up so much the vocation thinking their reward is gonna be getting rich as it is ... something else ... I don't know about you Bob but, all the teachers I know took it up in great part because of that "something else" ... job-security sure and summers on unemployment benefits would seem to be a pert good incentive but that can't possibly be all of it you reckon Bob?

"Is there any way to guarantee the teachers or others would win?"

No.

"Couldn't there be a lot of "collateral damage" even if they did?"

Yes. But I'd suggest there're means and methods to minimize that stuff.

You're somewhat right about our upbringings. In my earliest years I grew up in a city where running around with a gun was considered both bad manners and dangerous. Later, when my family moved to the "country" I took up hunting for a few years. City v. country is a big part of the disagreement about guns.

The problems with your argument are that you expect teachers to have military training. Probably no more of them sign up for that than to get rich. Secondly, you're forgetting the Las Vegas shooter's bump stock, which is still legal and, while technically not producing full auto, might as well. Also, while kits are supposedly harder to get, conversion schematics are not. You're right that semi autos are the weapons of choice for mass shooters, but full autos are available and escalation is probably inevitable. Even if not, we've seen too many times semis can do a lot of damage before a response is even possible.

No Bob, actually I expect "most teachers" to have none. 'Course there are schools such as the one I attended where the guys (few "lady soldiers" then) either coming home from war or, as it's possible to get twenty years in the mil and still be in one's 30s at retirement - teaching is a nice way to do one's "fading away."

All I expect of "most teachers" is they've presumably demonstrated a capacity to absorb training - and provided they're relatively physically fit, possess the desire, can pass an FBI background check, heck why not arm them?

Leaving aside the exceedingly rare Las Vegas bastard - name (no, do not type any other such bastard's name) provide me any other example where a mass shooter employed either a bump-stock or auto. As we're talking about events in the US Bob, mass casualty events such as those in either France generally of Mumbai specifically can't be included.

"Even if not, we've seen too many times semis can do a lot of damage before a response is even possible."

You're Bob pretty close looks to me, for a light-bulb illuminating above your noggin' - When seconds count the cops can probably get there in about ten minutes!

In the recent Texas church episode the cops took forty - good thing that plumber guy lived across the street.

I just noticed something kinda curious. "May" have something to do with the UK's 'Elf 'n Safey' department's policy regards its People being permitted to hear/read stuff hmmm ... "outta bounds" maybe?

Anyway, I just clicked the "opinion on gun control" link offa David's site but meantime, opened another browser tab and pasted the copied link onto the address thingy - guess which opened while the other did not?

I finally connected to the blog. I agree with the statement there that I've heard all the arguments before.

I have my doubts we could find enough ex-military with the desire, education and state license to fill enough teaching positions to make an effective school defense, but point taken. I'd have to go back to prohibition days to find a mass shooting with a full auto except for the Las Vegas shooter. He had full autos in addition to the bump stock. I'm not sure if they were manufactured as autos or modified. My point was escalation is nearly a sure thing and in fact already started in Las Vegas. Also, you might admit a large percentage of the American public doesn't want to live in a militarized society. The discontinuation of the draft and reliance on professional armed services makes that point.

I have a friend who is a retired state trooper. According to him there are lots of automatic weapons out there illegally and plenty of people who modify semi autos. He has an AR-15. I was amazed at how light it is. Compared to the shotguns I used to hunt it feels like a toy.

Now Bob I'll have to admit I really ain't got no clue where I could lay my hands on a number that'd reliably reflect how many people have cycled through say, Afghanistan and Iraq come back and've peaceably re-entered society. Anecdotally I can say that, every single time I've had to go down to the McClellan VA hospital I've spent sometimes up to thirty minutes finding a parking space in a lot that I've heard sports 505+ such available. Plus there're usually near 20 of those littleish buses seating oh, 20+ vets who enjoy company making the trip.

"My point was escalation is nearly a sure thing ..."

I hope Bob you didn't skip over Larry's paragraph describing how "the mightiest military force ever assembled" basically got stymied by the Afghan equivalent of high-school level chemistry and Radio Shack? Too there's the example from Columbine of the two murderers "strategically emplacing" ... as best I recall, 5 of those portable propane tanks with attached 9 volt batteries. Seem to recall they possessed a couple of machetes too but I'm uncertain. So, yep escalation is right up there with improvised explosives. Hell - last month in a county over from mine a couple people cooking up a batch of meth somehow managed to severely injure themselves when their little enterprise went haywire.

My nephew Bob, is a member of the Arkansas State Police "SRT" (sorta a smaller version of the FBI's HRT - but "smaller" oughtn't be taken to imply "lacks punch"). He tells me things really haven't changed much since the days when I was in a position to know such. So Bob what I'm saying is, I expect your trooper friend's veracity isn't such that I'd take issue.

Far as your saying "a large percentage of the American public doesn't want to live in a militarized society" on that I agree - thankfully our 2nd Amendment will keep on precluding that.

By the way Bob, there're two (non-LE) individuals in my county owning properly licensed full-autos. Both registered Democrat (at least the one person was when the name was on my municipal ballot).

As far as I can tell there are about 8 million educators in the US in public and private schools and colleges. There are about 7 million vets, from gen x'ers forward, of an appropriate age to become teachers, so your idea might work, at least for a while. It depends on how many are interested:

Still, from studying various polls, my understanding of public attitudes is that a majority of Americans don't want a country where teachers need to carry guns, and was limiting the conversation to guns. IEDs are another matter.

Fair enough Bob but your, "Still, from studying various polls .. a majority" could've, might've done as I did on the exactly two occasions somebodys) in either Paki or Indian accents polled me (how either got my number?)

I dissembled I freely admit. (Though as I pay attention to, among other things, EQs, I exchanged some chitchat with the pollsters whether I ought advise President Trump to dispatch the Seventh Fleet to "do a humanitarian" which, either owing to a misappreciation of the English language or perhaps the pollsters weren't so concerned with their reputed "severely challenged" close friends mothers and their "too young to possess a birth certificate" third and fourth cousins that, "the initial reports" of an 8+ knocking their aforementioned they'd not bothered checking whether Krakatoa had indeed let go with a Yellowstone-like were somewhat premature - or mis-reported.)

Anyway Bob - you familiar with the parents down in Parkland Florida who, a'cause he'd exhibited the "poor taste" to, despite losing their own flesh and blood daughter got hammered for wearing the "Support Trump" t-shirt?

As I understand it Bob, there's "death threats" happened there too.

So whaddaya think Bob, reckon there's likely a Go-Fund-Me garnering even an amount of bucks to even buy those parent's a tombstone for their daughter?

I agree polls are limited and actions they indicate are usually difficult to predict, but that doesn't mean they're worthless.

You might not believe it, but I'm a lot more interested in studying history, social trends and current events than blowing hot air about my own politics. Since I'm not a mega donor, my personal beliefs amount to not much more than one vote in tens of millions. I enjoy discussing stuff here and needling once in a while, but try to stick to facts and keep it light. Parents in Parkland wearing MAGA gear really isn't surprising, nor is it for other people to disapprove. That's pretty much in keeping with today's state of affairs.

Violence against schools is nothing new in the US. Since you mentioned IEDs:

"Deputy Scot Peterson, of the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, was armed and stationed on the school’s campus when a suspect identified by authorities as Nikolas Cruz opened fire with an AR-15 rifle, leaving 17 people dead and others wounded.

Peterson resigned Thursday after video surveillance showed he never entered the school, even though he "clearly" knew there was a shooting taking place, officials said. The revelation prompted widespread outrage."

I'm tired of the media circus too, but there's preaching from all corners on this one. NRA spokespeople are calling anyone who doesn't carry water for them everything from socialists (Over the years plenty of people who called themselves socialists have had lots of guns.) to Constitution/freedom/gun/America haters and accusing the news media of loving school shootings because they make such great TV.

Trump's idea about concealed carry by teachers is absurd. "Concealed" means a handgun. How many people, no matter what their background or training, have a chance going up against a semi auto with a handgun?

I'm guessing Bob you probably never confronted with a gun a wannabe with or without a gun?

But for what its worth I think it probably more oh, "offputting" I suppose were more than just a "resource officer" to openly carry. At least whenever around say, eighth-graders+?

Probably better though for elementary teachers to go CCW. For those so inclined.

I suppose though we could, seeing how as Trump's proposed an infra-structure program that we could maybe spend some few zillions of dollars constructing Pelican Bays for land-locked states and Alcatrazes for those on the coasts for the children to get their reading and arithmetic.

By the way Bob, I've yet to hear any proposals from you - you being a kinda/sorta NASA guy I'm, pretty sure, you've got some opinion so why not come out and state it plain?

Count it as doing your civic duty - hell Trump might Knight you. (Though were he to and I were you I'd ask McMaster to do the sword tapping.)

You're right that I've never pointed a gun at a person. That was the first thing I was taught not to do. My gun experience is limited to hunting rabbits, pheasant and the occasional duck and quail. I'm also no expert on guns and only have some general ideas.

Americans should be able to own guns, even full autos. However, not just anyone should have one. I see them something like vehicles. Almost anyone can get a driver's license for a car after they display the physical and mental ability and pass operating and road safety tests. I'd say that's pretty much equivalent to guns for hunting and target sports. From there the more powerful the weapon the more training, ability and testing to get a license. And misuse, criminal behavior or subsequent loss of mental ability would get the license yanked and weapon impounded. I wouldn't be in favor of people owning anything more powerful than an automatic rifle.

The 2nd amendment arguments are problematic. A lot of the same people who have "originalist" arguments for other things play fast and loose with the right to bear arms. The original intent was for Americans to be able to join an armed militia to keep over-reaching governments in check and fight foreign invaders. That has no meaning at this point unless we think people should own tanks, RPGs, nerve gas, fighter jets, nuclear weapons and so on.

Well Bob you're gonna find me disagreeing with "even full autos" (remember Bob the difference between auto and semi)? Something else I'm not sure you're clear about and that would be "powerful" - you meaning mass of the round or a muzzle velocity perhaps - even there its complicated.

You mentioned yourself above the word "escalation" and as you'll recall from Larry's link back in the Framer's time cannon were, at least in the colonist's case, privately owned! You're perhaps not even going there with your "well, if they can pass the driver's test"?

RPGs, nerve gas, and fighter aircraft - including jets (given what I know Bob) are already out there. ... And multiples thereof of the first example if, as I think you might, fundamentally misapprehend my definition of "power" comparing to what you may have in mind.

However Bob - the "proposals" I'm actually interested in getting your take on have to do with, and specifically, are how to reduce fatal mayhem in schools - your bearing in mind of course that link you posted from the Smithsonian? (For your convenience Bob I'll leave aside the possibility of some bullied seventh grade A-making chemist/biologist tending toward following in his Dad's footsteps as an HVAC installer whipping up a batch of legionella pneumophila for the class Science show.)

Like I wrote, I'm no expert on guns and wouldn't know where to draw the lines. That would be up to guys like you, and probably most of you wouldn't agree with each other, but eventually things would get worked out. My cop pal would pretty much declare war on illegal autos and conversions and impose stiff fines or jail time. Requiring licensing and training would protect schools and everything else provided enforcement against violations and unlicensed weapons was strict enough. It works in every other advanced country. And comparing the cannons of colonial times with modern weapons is a stretch.

Disappearing from radar is something we've known how to do for some time. The B2 bomber did a fairly good job of it just using a narrow profile and radar non-reflective materials. Things have probably come a long way since then. My guess is the fighters were chasing some new experimental aircraft with highly advanced capabilities. I left aerospace in 1989. Even back then there were things going on you might not believe.

One of the most impressive things I ever saw was the landing and takeoff of an SR-71 Blackbird at Miramar. The titanium skin is sized to fit when it's hot from friction with the air. After the plane sits on the runway for a while the skin shrinks and the tanks begin to leak fuel. You probably know it didn't need any defenses because it could outrun any missile of the time at mach 3. It also had a reduced radar profile, and it was put in service in 1966. I can't even imagine what the boys and girls designing military aircraft are up to now.

I ought too Bob admit to, in my (relatively) advancing state of slowing down combined with, as *my pt person makes clear Use it or Lose it!
(no Bob, she's meaning me walking without a cane) Anyway all I must admit to would be "I would hope to have acted" - I think I would've but I don't know candidly. Had I heard the terror though ...

Just to be clear Bob - where autos are concerned I have the same take as your pal.

Were you by any chance hanging around with this mangy crowd when I made mention of a 1980s "preppers band" that the then ATF chief (now governor of Arkansas) thought it a "good idea" to call in some active duty military personnel when the basically civilian ATF guys found themselves in possession of a "few" Sidewinder missiles?

And same general time-frame very close by a couple Missouri State Troopers found themselves facing an illegally modified Mac-10 in the hands of an Aryan Nations murderer?

I appreciate your honesty and can't be critical of Peterson at all since I've never been in a situation like the one he was in. You probably posted your comment about Sidewinders and the auto mod before I started hanging around here. I've heard or read similar stories. Law enforcement usually heads off killers that get their hands on that kind of hardware. Sometimes it's a thankless job.

Just one more thing though if only cause as you acknowledge, " Law enforcement usually heads off killers that get their hands on that kind of hardware. Sometimes it's a thankless job." And the "usually" bit.

Just a heads-up Bob and I rather expect you're likely to "feel" I probably comment elsewhere and not always as "JK."

Should you get into the comments on that post you might spy a pseudonym commenting under the guise of AIM-9 - I'll allow as you Bob might be forgiven were you to believe you recognize similarities in the use of language.